Hi Apple Developer Community, I'm experiencing an issue with Family Controls entitlements for my iOS app that I'd like to discuss and see if others have encountered similar problems. Background: My app (BrightStart) uses Family Controls to help users build healthy morning routines by temporarily blocking distracting apps until they complete a sunlight exposure session. The core functionality relies on automatic time-based blocking (e.g., block social media apps from 6-8am daily). The Problem: I have Family Controls working perfectly in development builds, but I'm blocked from distributing via TestFlight due to entitlement issues with my Device Activity Monitor extension. Technical Details: Main app bundle ID: app.brightstart.app ✅ Has both "Family Controls (Development)" and "Family Controls (Distribution)" options available Extension bundle ID: app.brightstart.app.BrightStartMonitorExtension ❌ Only shows "Family Controls (Development)" - no Distribution option Error when archiving for TestFlight: ❌ Provisioning profile failed qualification Profile doesn't support Family Controls (Development). Family Controls (Development) feature is for development only. Please use Family Controls (Distribution) for distribution. Impact: Cannot upload to TestFlight for beta testing Native FamilyActivityPicker falls back to mock UI in distributed builds Automatic scheduled app blocking (via DeviceActivityMonitor) doesn't function in production Questions for the community: Has anyone successfully gotten "Family Controls (Distribution)" enabled for a Device Activity Monitor extension? Is this a known limitation, or should I expect this option to be available? Are there alternative approaches for time-based automatic app blocking that work in distribution builds? Should I contact Apple Support directly about enabling this entitlement for the extension? Btw, Cursor wrote this summary above, so it could be just hallucinating the issue? Would really appreciate anyone's thoughts here.

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

Hi Apple team, I'm experiencing a persistent issue with writing to UserDefaults from a widget extension on iOS. Here's the situation: I've set up an App Group: group.test.blah The main app has the correct entitlement and can read/write from UserDefaults(suiteName:) using this group successfully. I can read the value written by the app from the widget (e.g., "testFromApp": "hiFromApp"). The widget extension has the same App Group enabled under Signing & Capabilities. The provisioning profile reflects the App Group and the build installs successfully on a real device. The suite name is correct and matches across both targets. I’ve confirmed via FileManager.default.containerURL(...) that the app group container resolves properly. When I try to write from the widget extension like this let sharedDefaults = UserDefaults(suiteName: "group.test.blah") sharedDefaults?.set("hiFromWidget", forKey: "testFromWidget") ...I get this error in the console: Couldn't write values for keys ( testFromWidget ) in CFPrefsPlistSource<0x1140d2880> (Domain: group.test.blah, User: kCFPreferencesCurrentUser, ByHost: No, Container: (null), Contents Need Refresh: No): setting preferences outside an application's container requires user-preference-write or file-write-data sandbox access Questions: What could still cause the widget extension to lack write access to the app group container, even though it reads just fine? Are there any internal sandboxing nuances or timing-related issues specific to Live Activity widgets that could explain this? Is this a known limitation or platform issue?

Hi, Our App relies on a keychain to store certificates and key-value pairs. However, when we upgraded from an older XCode 15.2 (1 year old) app version to a newer version XCode 16.2 (with identical keychain-groups entitlement), we found that the newer ipa cannot see the older keychain group anymore... We tried Testflight builds, but limited to only generating newer versions, we tried using the older App's code, cast as a newer App version, and then upgraded to the newer code (with an even newer app version!). Surprisingly we were able to see the older keychain group. So it seems that there's something different between the packaging/profile of the older (1 year) and newer (current) App versions that seems to cause the new version to not see the old keychainGroup... Any ideas?

I already waited 4 weeks to get family control entitlement for my bundle ID : com.company.my-cool-app While trying to distribute the app, Its forcing me to have provisioning profile for com.company.my-cool-app.ReportExtension and when I create the provisioning profile it says : doesn't include the com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement.

Hello, I am working to integrate the new com.apple.developer.networking.carrier-constrained.app-optimized entitlement in my iOS 26 app so that my app can use a carrier-provided satellite network, and want to confirm my understanding of how to detect and optimize for satellite network conditions. (Ref: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.developer.networking.carrier-constrained.app-optimized ) My current approach: I plan to set the entitlement to true once my app is optimized for satellite networks. To detect if the device is connected to a satellite network, I intend to use the Network framework’s NWPath properties: isUltraConstrained — I understand this should be set to true when the device is connected to a satellite network. (Ref: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network/nwpath/isultraconstrained ) linkQuality == .minimal — I believe this will also be set in satellite scenarios, though it may not be exclusive to satellite connections. (Ref: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network/nwpath/linkquality-swift.enum/minimal ) Questions: Is it correct that isUltraConstrained will reliably indicate a satellite connection? Should I also check for linkQuality == .minimal, or is isUltraConstrained sufficient? Are there any additional APIs or best practices for detecting and optimizing for satellite connectivity that I should be aware of? Thank you for confirming whether my understanding and approach are correct, and for any additional guidance.

When setting new entitlements com.apple.developer.networking.carrier-constrained.appcategory and com.apple.developer.networking.carrier-constrained.app-optimized, I have a question about how URLSession should behave. I notice we have a way to specify whether a Network connection should allow ultra-constrained paths via NWParameters allowUltraConstrainedPaths: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network/nwparameters/allowultraconstrainedpaths There does not appear to be a similar property on URLSessionConfiguration. In an ultra-constrained (eg. satellite) network, should we expect all requests made through an URLSession to fail? Does all network activity when ultra-constrained need to go through a NWConnection or NetworkConnection specifically configured with allowUltraConstrainedPaths, or can URLSession ever be configured to allow ultra-constrained paths?

Note: This failure occurs even when running on the same machine that performed the build, signing, and notarization steps. We are developing a command-line Endpoint Security (ES) client for macOS, distributed to customers as part of an enterprise security suite. We have a valid Apple Developer Team ID (redacted for privacy) and have requested and received the Endpoint Security entitlement for our account. What We’ve Done Built a universal (x86_64/arm64) CLI ES client using Xcode on macOS Sonoma. Signed with a Developer ID Application certificate (matching our Team ID). Applied the entitlement: com.apple.developer.endpoint-security.client. Notarized the binary via notarytool after receiving Apple’s confirmation that the entitlement was “assigned to our account.” Distributed and unzipped the notarized ZIP (with com.apple.quarantine xattr intact). What Happens: When we run the binary (as root, via sudo) on any test Mac—including the original build/notarization machine—the process is killed immediately at launch. Kernel log (log stream --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "AMFI"' --info) shows: AMFI: code signature validation failed. AMFI: bailing out because of restricted entitlements. AMFI: When validating /path/to/fidelisevents: Code has restricted entitlements, but the validation of its code signature failed. Unsatisfied Entitlements: What We’ve Verified: codesign -dvvv --entitlements :- ./fidelisevents shows the correct entitlement, team identifier, and certificate. xattr ./fidelisevents shows both com.apple.provenance and com.apple.quarantine. spctl -a -vv ./fidelisevents returns: rejected (the code is valid but does not seem to be an app) origin=Developer ID Application: [REDACTED] The process is killed even if run on the same Mac where build/sign/notarization occurred. Other Details The entitlement approval email from Apple simply says it is “assigned to your account” and does not mention “production” or “distribution.” We have rebuilt, re-signed, and re-notarized after receiving the email. This occurs on both Apple Silicon and Intel Macs, with recent macOS versions (Sonoma, Ventura). Question Is it possible that Apple only assigned the development Endpoint Security entitlement, and not the production entitlement required for distributing/running notarized ES clients outside of development? Is there any way to verify the level of entitlement (dev vs. production) associated with our Team ID? What additional steps, if any, are needed to enable the production entitlement so that our binaries can run on customer endpoints without being killed by AMFI? Any advice, experience, or official documentation about production ES entitlement rollout, approval, or troubleshooting would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone, we’ve been waiting since May 30 for our Tap to Pay on iPhone entitlement to be enabled for distribution, but it’s still only active for development (Case‑ID: 14485444). We submitted: A new video recorded from an external device showing the full checkout flow Updated merchant education using the ProximityReaderDiscovery.Topic.payment(.howToTap) API, as suggested by Apple The team initially said the education was compliant, then said it wasn’t. We fixed everything, sent the updated materials, and haven’t heard back in days. We can’t even upload the app to TestFlight because of this error: Profile doesn't include the com.apple.developer.proximity-reader.payment.acceptance entitlement It’s now been almost a month and a half, and this delay is becoming critical. It’s blocking both internal testing and our production release. We’d really appreciate clarity on: Do we need to submit another request via the form? Or is it enough to reply to the existing email thread? Also, are there any direct contacts or escalation paths we can use? Any help or guidance appreciated

Hello community, I'm new here, so please excuse my blunt question. I'm trying to understand how everything works and the logic behind it. I have an idea for an app which requires the FamilyControl entitlement. Now I am not sure if the idea even works, so I wanted to test it on my own device. Am I correct, that I cannot even test an App with such entitlements without paying for the ADP? Not even on my own device? I completely understand I need to be a member in the ADP if I want to distribute my app, but I'm not there, yet, and I just want to do a proof-of-concept. I thought I can't be the first one with that question, but couldn't find a past topic on this, so I'm posting it. Regards, Niklas

I'm trying to create an app that authenticates to Apple Music using MusicKit but whenever I try to build my profile through eas, I am getting this error: Provisioning profile doesn't include the com.apple.developer.music-kit entitlement. However, my provisioning profile does have MusicKit enabled.

This was working a few days ago, but it has since stopped and I can't figure out why. I've tried resetting TCC, double-checking my entitlements, restarting, deleting and rebuilding, and nothing works. My app is a sandboxed macOS SwiftUI LSUIElement app that, when invoked, checks to see if the frontmost process is Terminal, then tries to get the frontmost window’s title. func getFrontmostWindowTitle() throws -> String? { let trusted = AXIsProcessTrusted() print("getFrontmostWindowTitle AX trusted: \(trusted)") guard let app = NSWorkspace.shared.frontmostApplication else { return nil } let appElement = AXUIElementCreateApplication(app.processIdentifier) var focusedWindow: AnyObject? let status = AXUIElementCopyAttributeValue(appElement, kAXFocusedWindowAttribute as CFString, &focusedWindow) guard status == .success, let window = focusedWindow else { if status == .cannotComplete { throw Errors.needAccessibilityPermission } return nil } var title: AnyObject? let titleStatus = AXUIElementCopyAttributeValue(window as! AXUIElement, kAXTitleAttribute as CFString, &title) guard titleStatus == .success else { return nil } return title as? String } I recently renamed the app, but the Bundle ID has not yet changed. I have com.apple.security.accessibility set to YES in the Entitlements file (although i had to add it manually), and a NSAccessibilityUsageDescription string set in Info.plist. The first time I ran this, macOS nicely prompted for permission. Now it won't do that, even when I use AXIsProcessTrustedWithOptions() to try to force it. If I use tccutil to reset accessibility and apple events, it still doesn't prompt. If I drag my app from the build products folder to System Settings, it gets added to the system TCC DB (not the user DB). It shows an auth value of 2 for my app: % sudo sqlite3 "/Library/Application Support/com.apple.TCC/TCC.db" "SELECT client,auth_value FROM access WHERE service='kTCCServiceAccessibility' OR service='kTCCServiceAppleEvents';" com.latencyzero.<redacted>|2 <redactd> I'm at a loss as to what went wrong. I proved out the concept earlier and it worked, and have since spent a lot of time enhancing and polishing the app, and now things aren't working and I'm starting to worry.

Hi guys, I'm trying to upload my app with Tap to Pay on iPhone functionality. However, I'm getting error message "Profile doesn't include com.apple.developer.proximity-reader.payment.acceptance entitlement." I've confirmed many times that I have the distribution profile with this capability. Any idea what might be the issue? The development environment works perfectly.

Tap to Pay capabilities are enable and I can use in development profile but I cannot make build that I can upload on TestFlight using the distribution profile because during create build I am getting "Provisioning profile doesn't support the Tap to Pay on iPhone capability." this should be working because I checked twice that distribution profile and certificate have this capability and added in Xcode. how can I resolve this mismatched profile issue I am using Xcode - 15.0.1

If your developer team has been approved to implement Tap to Pay on iPhone, you were granted a managed entitlement configured only for the Development distribution type. When compiling your project for any other distribution type, such as App Store or Ad hoc, the build with fail with errors. You can resolve these errors by contacting the initial provisioning team and asking for production distribution review/validation. For more information on requesting the Tap to Pay on iPhone entitlement, see the documentation below: Setting up Tap to Pay on iPhone https://developer.apple.com/documentation/proximityreader/setting-up-the-entitlement-for-tap-to-pay-on-iphone To request for permission for the App Store and Ad hoc distribution types, please respond to the confirmation email received after your initial entitlement request. The provisioning team will provide the next steps to begin the public distribution review process and eventually approve your app for distribution via TestFlight and the App Store. Note: The only team that manages this entitlement is the same provisioning team that granted you access, so you'll need to follow-up with the same team that approved your initial request to resolve this compilation and archival issue. Once you're approved for App Store distribution, the same steps used to distribute your app via TestFlight will be successful. If you continue to have errors after confirming you've been granted the App Store distribution type for your app configuration, please see the post below, then create a new post for your issue and mention your Feedback ID after following the steps: Gathering Required Information for Troubleshooting Tap to Pay on iPhone https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/775784 Cheers, Paris X Pinkney |  WWDR | DTS Engineer

Two months ago we got approval for using the Notification Filtering entitlement. We rushed out to implement it in our app, only to find out that the permission was set for the wrong bundle identifier. We expected to get the permission for the notification extension's bundle identifier, yet it is added for the main app's bundle identifier. Per the official docs, the entitlement permission should be in the notification service extension target: After you receive permission to use the entitlement, add com.apple.developer.usernotifications.filtering to the entitlements file in the Notification Service Extension target. However, this fails to get signed when compiling for non-simulator targets because of the bundle mismatch issue. Simulator perfectly filters notifications. Adding the entitlement to the main app does compile, but filtering does not work (as expected). We reached out to Apple twice (Case-ID: 14330583) but we have yet to receive any response. Could there be something else wrong instead of the identifier mismatch?

Hi everyone, I’m working an Objective-C lib that performs Keychain operations, such as generating cryptographic keys and signing data. The lib will be used by my team in a Java program for macOS via JNI. When working with the traditional file-based Keychain (i.e., without access control flags), everything works smoothly, no issues at all. However, as soon as I try to generate a key using access control flags SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, the Data Protection Keychain returns error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) during SecKeyCreateRandomKey. This behavior is expected. To address this, I attempted to codesign my native dynamic library (.dylib) with an entitlement plist specifying various combinations of: keychain-access-groups com.apple.security.keychain etc. with: My Apple Development certificate Developer ID Application certificate Apple Distribution certificate None of these combinations made a difference, the error persists. I’d love to clarify: Is it supported to access Data Protection Keychain / Secure Enclave Keys in this type of use case? If so, what exact entitlements does macOS expect when calling SecKeyCreateRandomKey from a native library? I’d really appreciate any guidance or clarification. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Neil

Getting "Error Domain=NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=513 "You don’t have permission to save the file" unexpectedly while attempting to create a small log file. Here's some background. This is a Swift app I wrote for my own use six years ago. A week ago, I made a small update to the app, which has not been changed in over two years. First time using Xcode 16.4 on this app, which required some code updates of course. The code creating this file has not been changed. Now for the first time, I'm getting this permissions error on a folder with wide-open permissions. This is the code. Worked for years under previous versions of Xcode. * if let outputURL = URL(string: "file://" + logPath + "/output_" + outputFormatter.string(from:Date()) + ".txt"){ do{ try outputString.write(to: outputURL, atomically:false, encoding: .utf8) }catch let error as NSError{ print ("log write error (error) (nl) (outputString)") } }

Hi I am building obs studio using cmake and Xcode. I used cmake --preset macos -DOBS_CODESIGN_IDENTITY="" to generate the build folder and inside X code used Provisioning Profile with Developer ID Application certification. The build was generated successfully but when I tried to turn on the virtual camera I see missing Missing entitlement com.apple.developer.system-extension.install error. (My Provisioning profile has System Extension Capability checked on apple developer portal) If I use this flow instead: cmake --preset macos -DOBS_CODESIGN_TEAM=63B5A5WDNG Build using Xcode with Automatic manage signing with Apple Developer Certificate. Obs studio builds successfully and Virtual camera extension also works fine. My primary goal is to notarise my app which contains OBS studio and Blackhole Audio driver for distribution outside app store. If I try to sign my obs app generated in second step codesign --deep --force --timestamp --verify --verbose \ --options runtime --sign "Developer ID Application:***" "OBS.app" The obs app fails to launch due to some errors. Can anyone please guide me which step I might be doing wrong, Much Appreciated. Thanks

Please provide a descriptive title for your feedback: Downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles - missing new entitlements Which area are you seeing an issue with? App Store Connect What type of feedback are you reporting? Incorrect/Unexpected Behavior Please provide the App name/App ID if possible: com.onexengineering.themedeck.macos Please describe the issue and what steps we can take to reproduce it bug in App Store Connect where downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles are missing the new entitlements regenerated from scratch -- App Store Connect says entitlements are good, but actual file confirms entitlements are missing App Store provisioning profiles seem to be unaffected (ignore my incorrect naming of files)